[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 177 (Thursday, September 13, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52344-52345]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-18069]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-867]


Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from The 
People's Republic of China: Notice of Decision of the Court of 
International Trade Not in Harmony

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On June 28, 2007, the United States Court of International 
Trade (``Court'') entered a final judgment in Xinyi Automotive Glass v. 
United States sustaining the third remand results made by the 
Department of Commerce (``the Department'') pursuant to the Court's 
remand of the final determination with respect to Certain Automotive 
Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC'') in Slip Op. 06-21 (CIT February 15, 2006). See Xinyi 
Automotive Glass v. United States, Ct. No. 02-00321, Judgment (Ct. 
Int'l Trade June 28, 2007) (``Xinyi''). This case arises out of the 
Department's Antidumping Duty Order on Certain

[[Page 52345]]

Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of 
China, 67 FR 16087 (April 4, 2002) (``Order''). The final judgment in 
this case was not in harmony with the Department's Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass 
Windshields From the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 
12, 2002) (``Final Determination''), and accompanying Issues and 
Decisions Memorandum (``Decision Memo''), as amended at 67 FR 11670 
(March 15, 2002), covering the period of investigation (``POI''), July 
1, 2000 through December 31, 2000.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 8, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Degnan, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0414.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Plaintiffs, Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd. (``Fuyao'') and 
Xinyi Automotive Glass Co., Ltd. (``Xinyi''), initially in separate 
lawsuits, contested several aspects of the Final Determination, 
including the Department's decision to disregard certain market economy 
inputs. On August 6, 2002, all law suits challenging the Final 
Determination, including Xinyi's lawsuit, were consolidated into Fuyao 
Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 02-
00282, 2006 Ct. Int'l Trade Lexis 21, Slip Op. 2006-21 (CIT February 
15, 2006) (``Fuyao Glass III''). On February 15, 2006, while the cases 
were still consolidated, the court remanded the Department's decision 
regarding certain market economy inputs to the Department. In its 
remand to the Department, the Court concluded with respect to the 
standard applied in the Department's analysis, that the Department must 
conduct its analysis ``in accordance with the court's finding with 
respect to the use of the word 'are' rather than 'may be' when applying 
its subsidized price methodology.'' Fuyao Glass III, Slip Op. P. 9. The 
Court further directed the Department to either (1) ``concur with the 
court's conclusions with respect to substantial evidence, or (2) re-
open the record . . .'' Fuyao Glass III, Slip Op. p. 7. The Court 
concluded that it does not find the Department's determination, that 
prices from Korea and Indonesia are subsidized, is supported by 
substantial record evidence. See Fuyao Glass III, Slip Op. p. 16. 
Pursuant to the Court's ruling, and under respectful protest, the 
Department concurred that the record evidence does not contain 
substantial evidence to support a conclusion that prices from Korea and 
Indonesia are subsidized. See Viraj Group v. United States, 343 F.3d 
1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Because the Court found that the evidence 
on the record does not support the Department's determination to 
disregard prices from Korea and Indonesia, in the remand results, the 
Department determined to calculate the dumping margin for Fuyao and 
Xinyi based upon prices the plaintiffs actually paid to suppliers 
located in Korea and Indonesia.
    On January 8, 2007, Xinyi's action was severed from the 
consolidated action. See Court Order of January 8, 2007, in Ct. No. 02-
00282. On June 28, 2007, the court issued a final judgment, wherein it 
affirmed the Department's third remand results with respect to Xinyi's 
action.

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken Co., v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (``Timken''), the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), the Department must 
publish a notice of a court decision that is not ``in harmony'' with a 
Department determination. The Court's decision in Xinyi on June 28, 
2007, constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony 
with the Department's Final Determination. This notice is published in 
fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the 
Department will issue revised instructions to U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection if the Court's decision is not appealed or if it is affirmed 
on appeal.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 
516A(c)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: September 7, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-18069 Filed 9-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S